Posted:18th Nov 2004I keep forgetting to ask this and now I don't have time to ask coherenlty as I need to run.

Can someone explain to me what the laws are for gay marriage between states and in federal terms?

Can a married gay couple in Massachusets (where gay marriage is legal) claim 'marriage' on their federal income tax? Can they on their Massachusets state income tax? If they move to Texas, can they claim it on their Texas state income tax?

What ARE the actual laws at this moment?

Health insurance in gay 'friendly' states? What if the insurance company is national? What about employment?

Posted:7th Dec 2006Sorry, I don't understand what you mean, instead I'm going to go on with what I think you mean (probably a bad idea).

Religion I see as a choice, but not sexuality. For example, if the Christian religion didn't exist, I wouldn't have been brought up as a Catholic, but I'd still be gay. I choose to be true to myself and I choose to be with a man, but I could never be happy in a relationship with a woman, so my sexuality is tied to my lifestyle, if you define lifestyle as including your relationships.

... by labelling homosexuality as deviant behaviour, lots of gay people take that deviance to be essential to their identity, and will attack people that don't fit into the gay/straight dichotomy, and don't see sexuality as an incredibly complex set of physical and social impulses. Stupid, but understandable.

I think Loey's post said everything that needs to be said. Your sexuality does not necassarily define your lifestyle, but as Loey said, because of society's perceived or actual view of homosexuality as deviant, some people base thier life style on this deviance. But on the other hand, if sexuality does not define lifestyle, there should be no barriers before a gay person living life in the same way as a straight person, thus coming back to the point that gay civil partnerships/ marriage should provide the same benefits as a straight civil partnership/marriage.

i didn't mean that sexuality is a choicewhat i dont understand is: why is lifestyle different just because of the gender you date?

That's a good question. I don't think sexuality has anything to do with "lifestyle". I know plenty of gay people who are quite domestic, work their jobs, hang out at home and tend to their gardens and I know plenty of straight people who are polyamorous, party & go to sex clubs.

I think the notion of a "gay lifestyle" is defined not by gay people, but by those straight people who wish to pathologize and/or condemn being gay.

Posted:7th Dec 2006are you serious, i mean you have to be kidding,of course the majority of people probably live "regular" livesbut we have a whole section of the city where they have stores devoted solely to homosexual life and propogating it, food stores, clothing, music, books, clubs, cards, artif you are gay you live in one section of the city for the most partthere is a group of flamers at the university where they beleive everything is secretly aimed toward the gay male population, either to benefit or detriment

FaithNay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

are you serious, i mean you have to be kidding,of course the majority of people probably live "regular" lives

I am serious, and I'm not kidding. I don't think we're disagreeing, Faith. My point was that yes, the majority of people do probably live "regular" lives, but most people who use the term "gay lifestyle," particularly those who are anti-gay, don't see it that way. Or they do see it that way but deliberately misconstrue it in the service of their own agenda. What I was trying to say is that I don't really believe there is a "gay lifestyle." There is what I would call a "hedonistic" lifestyle, and that is one to which both gay and heterosexually-oriented people subscribe. My point was in answer to your question, what does lifestyle have to do with the gender of who you date? The answer: nothing.

Written by: faithinfire

but we have a whole section of the city where they have stores devoted solely to homosexual life and propogating it, food stores, clothing, music, books, clubs, cards, artif you are gay you live in one section of the city for the most part

It doesn't surprise me that there'd be a gay ghetto; I think at this point most major cities have one, at least in the Western developed world. I don't think that's so much about "lifestyle," though so much as it's about a marginalized group that feels unwelcome/unserved/actively discriminated against by the rest of society wanting/needing a place where they feel safe and "among their own kind," so to speak. So it's less about "lifestyle" and more about "community." I don't see gay neighborhoods as anything different than Chinatown(s) or Little Italy(s) that exist in many cities.

As a sidenote to this, the Castro District of San Francisco, where I live (I live in SF, not the Castro), is arguably the most "famous" gay neighborhood in the world. Before the gay community moved in during the '60's it had been a working-class Irish neighborhood. After decades of being "the" gay neighborhood though, a lot of heterosexual couples with children are moving in, and it's starting to change the dynamic of the area quite a lot. It'll be interesting to see what it's like in 10 years.

Written by: faithinfire

there is a group of flamers at the university where they beleive everything is secretly aimed toward the gay male population, either to benefit or detriment

I don't know what to say about that, except that I think that the spokespeople for Abercrombie & Fitch are being rather disingenuous when they insist their marketing is not targeting gay men.

Posted:10th Dec 2006"it's about a marginalized group that feels unwelcome/unserved/actively discriminated against by the rest of society wanting/needing a place where they feel safe and "among their own kind," so to speak."you used ethnic groups as also having wards-we actually have ghettos, so they go by wards moreso, but the point being that these groups have cultures and lifestyles within these communities...so then it is about continuing a lifestyle and perpetuating a culture

FaithNay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Posted:12th Dec 2006The gay community, like the black community or the Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Arabic community etc. has almost full and equal rights here in England, but we are still a different group with different wants and desires from the norm. So it is perfectly reasonable to find these communities living in a group of like minded individual of their own volition.

I do not understand what the issue is, as there are many other groups who do the same. I for example am a furry, a computer geek, a LARPer and a spinner. So I occasionaly go to Fur meets, LAN parties, LARP games and Spinning meets, so why's going to a gay bar any different from these? Groups band together because of command interests, whether that be religion, sexuality, race or politics.

The issue you've wandered on to is that of assimilation versus diversity, which I suppose is relavant to this discussion...

Posted:13th Dec 2006I live with another furry, yes, and I'm engaged to one, and I've got quite a few friends who are, but I don't live in a community of furries, primarily because the furry subculture is so small in comparison to, say, the Gay community or the Indian community or whatever. But the subculture has its own shops, its own magazines, comics, websites etc. which cater for the needs of the subcultures members.

The same is true for fishing or art, or religion or business, so why can it not be true for homosexuals?

Posted:13th Dec 2006good pointi guess my only answer is imo and in disagreement with many in this discussion and that homosexuality is just that a sexualitythe difference seems to be the title of this thread...they are looking for marriage rights...which again imo is a religious institution and should be decided within the churchcivil unions are not marriagesreally all i want to see is they have the rights and those come with civil unionsstill, i know i cannot force my views on someone else, no matter the strength of my views

FaithNay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Posted:14th Dec 2006why dont they just start there own sect of christanity there are hundres of them already no ones gona mind one more then make gay marrage ok in there branch. people who dont want gay marrage in there religioun still get to exclude them. people who want to be gay but part of a religous institution get a place to go and get marryed problem solved.

and even if they dont do that, why does anyone care if its called marrage or civil union if appart from the name there exacly the same. whats in a name, a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet to quote a wiser man than i.EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166012747)

Posted:14th Dec 2006absolutely not the same thing as you should know by reading the other postscivil is just thatmarriage that most of us have been discussing in a religious context though that has been disputed toosure, start their own religion, christianity is full of that, then everyone can be happy and they can be the new mormons

FaithNay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Posted:14th Dec 2006I think the whole idea of "marriage (is) in a religious context" is still completely contentious and flies in the face of every dictionary definition you yourself have previously posted Faith.

I've been filling in the documents for my wedding next summer. They are entitled such things as Legal form for Marriage. I am getting married. At no point has there been a box to tick to ensure that it will be religious lest they need to change their terminology.

In fact, from the UK government web pages (http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/marriages/):

"A marriage can take place in England and Wales at a register office, at a building approved for civil marriage, in an Anglican church or in any other religious building that is registered for the solemnisation of marriage."

So you can get married by your religion or your registrar and whether or not you involve god you are then a married couple.

I appreciate that you personally would prefer to retain the term 'marriage' for religious ceremonies, but the fact is that that is not the reality (at the very least not in the UK).

It would therefore seem that to base your argument for preventing homosexual couples from being granted full and equal marriage rights on the grounds that marriage is reserved for religion and religion says gays can't marry is nonsensical.

Posted:14th Dec 2006i think for the sake of this discussion there has been some seperation in order to diminish confusionmy religion says they can't marrythey can start their owndon't insult me as i don't go around insulting you

FaithNay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Posted:14th Dec 2006I don't think I did insult you Faith, I apologise if you feel that way.

I certainly feel attacked by your continuous assertion that non-religious weddings (and by that logic my wedding) cannot be referred to as marriages but should be given some other status as unions. After a wedding people are generally referred to as a married couple, however you are telling me that I should be saying unionised or unified or some such instead of married. This is not an idea that I like. Nor is it based on any facts that I could find, only on your opinion.

I think using different terminology "to diminish confusion" has clearly been confusing in itself and I maintain that non-religious people do not need to "start their own" religion to marry - they can already marry outside of a religious context.

I think the fact that the right to marry outside of a religious context is denied to homosexual couples is what is actually at question here. Whilst I can see that all this diversion into what religions find acceptable is reflective of the arguments being used outside of HoP in discussion of this issue, it still seems to be at a tangent to the real question.

Why can't homosexual couples have the same marriage rights as non-religious heterosexual couples?

Posted:14th Dec 2006I think the point Faith is trying to make is that a marriage is in the sight of god (whatever god that may be) and a union is in the eyes of the state, and the community. For the purposes of this thread, its been a really useful distinction.

For myself, I don't seek to have a church wedding - why on earth would I seek to associate myself with an organisation that loathes my sexual preference? However I do seek for my union with my partner to be recognised by the state, so I can have exactly the same legal rights and community recognition of our relationship that any heterosexual couple would have.

However there are lots of deeply committed christians (just for the sake of argument, I'm not bringing other religions into it... sorry!) who believe that god does not discriminate on the basis of homosexuality, who DO want to be married in the sight of god, and so the distinction isn't so clear as we'd like it to be on this thread.

"You've gone from Loey the Wonder Lesbian to everyone wondering if you are a lesbian." - Shadowman

Yesterday is yesterday. If we try to recapture it, we will only lose tomorrow.

Posted:15th Dec 2006marrage isn't actualy a christian thing every culture has it and as its been pointed out it even predates christianity. so why dont we just invert the definition and instead of saying when its it ok. just say when is it not ok.

so i would say its only not ok in afew particular sects of christanity. if your a member of one of those sects you ether can't get marry or have to leave the sect. for them is a private club one of the rules been gays can't marry so long as they keep that beleafe to them selfs and don't try and force it on anyone else then let think that if it'll make them happy.

there are alot of religons and cults that think crazy things so long as we acholoage that they are exceptions to the general rule and not the other way round i think thats a fair situation.

as for those who DO want to be married in the sight of god. start your own religion or relgious subset of one you accosiate with its not like religon is regulated by some aurthority, anyone can create what ever religon they want that beleaves what ever they want. that religion isn't going to be any less valid than the religions that dont alow gay marrage.

of course while its is ok to do in the uk i'll be the first to admit that before this could be done in the US laws would need changeing in many states.EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166112159)